Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem?

[CavaliersFTW]

Hakeem's moves are prettier because he was smaller and quicker, wilt was flat out a lot more dominant than Hakeem in the low post regardless of how many countermoves Hakeem impresses you with. Wilt backing you in with two dribbles and any of his other power game moves given his size and strength are more reliable and unstoppable than anything Hakeem could do.

[fpliii]

Probably not, but aren't both top 5 locks?

[CavaliersFTW]

Probably not, but aren't both top 5 locks?
At center position if Mikan is given his due it creates problems for ranking Hakeem, shaq, and Malone so not necessarily. I usually don't bother with lists that have a cutoff though because someone is bound to get snubbed depending on the number. There's more than just 5 top tier centers all time IMO

[fpliii]

At center position if Mikan is given his due it creates problems for ranking Hakeem, shaq, and Malone so not necessarily. I usually don't bother with lists that have a cutoff though because someone is bound to get snubbed depending on the number. There's more than just 5 top tier centers all time IMO
Oh I meant top 5 in terms of low post scoring (sorry if I was ambiguous). I don't like GOAT lists either. :cheers:

[CavaliersFTW]

Oh I meant top 5 in terms of low post scoring (sorry if I was ambiguous). I don't like GOAT lists either. :cheers:
In all honesty I don't know, because I haven't duly evaluated every dominant low post player with a keen eye, I just conclude from my own observations of wilt and Hakeem's film that I've seen thus far that wilt looks like he had more free reign deep in the key than Hakeem did due to his size and strength

[navy]

Wilt played in a weak era doe.

[bmd]

If you think Wilt would be nearly as effective playing when Hakeem played, you're out of your mind.

[Railgun]

Wilt played in a weak era doe.
This. Stop comparing Wilt to successful players, please.

[mr.big35]

Wilt played in a weak era doe.

its not his fault that he was born in the 30s and had to play in the weak era.

[CavaliersFTW]

If you think Wilt would be nearly as effective playing when Hakeem played, you're out of your mind. attempting to create your own sidebar discussion? You must not disagree with my OP, thanks :cheers:

[fpliii]

In all honesty I don't know, because I haven't duly evaluated every dominant low post player with a keen eye, I just conclude from my own observations of wilt and Hakeem's film that I've seen thus far that wilt looks like he had more free reign deep in the key than Hakeem did due to his size and strength
That's fair IMO. I haven't watched enough of every dominant post player either. I'm trying to check out as much as possible, presently I'm watching as much prime Kareem as I can (while using PHILA's breakdown as a guide), trying to figure out exactly what he's doing.

From speaking with shaqattack on RealGM, it seems like there's a real chance Lanier was a truly dominant post player. I think Moses might have been as well, but every single mix is predominantly of plays of him finishing or scoring off the offensive boards. Reed was incredible too, obviously.

[CavaliersFTW]

This. Stop comparing Wilt to successful players, please.
Hakeem was less successful than wilt, in part because of what I stated in the OP :cheers:

[navy]

Hakeem was less successful than wilt, in part because of what I stated in the OP :cheers:
Boiled down

2 real rings > 2 weak era rings

[Warfan]

Skillset wise i'd say Hakeem, McHale, Kareem and Duncan may be better, but effectiveness i'd say only Shaq compares to Wilt. Wilt pretty much scored exclusively in the low post.

[CavaliersFTW]

Boiled down

2 real rings > 2 weak era rings
Boiled all those records into oblivion I see :lol

[navy]

Boiled all those records into oblivion I see :lol
Yep. Nobody takes those records seriously. It's what happens when you play in a weak era where the scrub white guys allow you to average 50 points a game.

[CavaliersFTW]

Skillset wise i'd say Hakeem, McHale, Kareem and Duncan may be better, but effectiveness i'd say only Shaq compares to Wilt. Wilt pretty much scored exclusively in the low post.
Yes skill set is a different matter entirely, effectiveness and skill set are somewhat linked of course but some players (like wilt, or shaq) had so many other unorthodox tools going for them they could maximize their abilities keeping their repertoire focused on power moves, and simplicity, as opposed to quickness, ambidexterity and deception. I honestly don't think shaq or wilt get any better save for free throws if they tried smaller player moves and versatility, it would only serve to take them away from their power game.

[bmd]

attempting to create your own sidebar discussion? You must not disagree with my OP, thanks :cheers:No, my point is you can't just watch film like you are doing and compare the two. They were playing against completely different players with different rules.

If you transplanted Wilt into the 90's and he had to go up against those centers and defenses, the things he was able to do in the '60's may disappear.

If you took Hakeem and transplanted him into the 60's, you may see him doing things then that were even more dominant than what he did in the 90's.

One last point...

Put the worst NBA point guard up against a high school point guard, and he would do things that make you think he's an incredible player who can pull off crazy moves. Put that same NBA point guard back in the NBA, and you would think he's a scrub who has no moves at all. Same concept.

[Smoke117]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.

[Round Mound]

Skillset wise i'd say Hakeem, McHale, Kareem and Duncan may be better, but effectiveness i'd say only Shaq compares to Wilt. Wilt pretty much scored exclusively in the low post.

:no: ...And Barkley.

[sundizz]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.


:cheers: :roll: :pimp:

Ethered this idiot. Always posting like he has some first hand knowledge of these players. I could post that Javale McGee vid where he looks like Wilt on roids. Just because Wilt played against people that were tall/strong doesn't mean they were 80's+ level of basketball players.

No one knows how well Wilt would do today. He could either be the GOAT, or another Javale McGee. We watch players hundreds of times nowadays from high school through college and we still basically are guessing at who is going to end up dominant in the NBA.

The ONLY way I would respect your opinions on here is if you show your ability to scout players using current players. If you could pick out of this next upcoming 2014 draft who the top players are then you might be at least a reasonable judge of talent. There is more than enough video for you to base your opinions on.

[DatAsh]

I agree with your point. I've always said Shaq is the best low post player I've ever seen. Hakeem was prettier, but I don't think that makes him better. He did have a better high post game though.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.
:bowdown: :applause: Everytime CavaliersFTW makes a Wilt thread, this should be copy and pasted.

[SexSymbol]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.
Fatality.

[dr.hee]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.

http://i.imgur.com/mmTijOR.gif

[The-Legend-24]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/12/122165/2574831-8798349651-mj-la.gif

[eliteballer]

OP isn't old enough to have even seen Hakeem play, let alone Wilt.

Wilt post move:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zt1XHM08qM&t=0m22s

Hakeem post move:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GCyU0sKxqI&t=2m25s

[AirFederer]

I cannot see any post moves of Wilt in that video... But a beast he was.

[Psileas]

When Wilt decided to play much more exclusively in the post and drop his fancy moves, he produced 24 ppg on an unparellelled 68% FG. Notice that the OP mentions nothing about post skills, it only mentions efficiency, so posting Youtube clips of the Dream Shake and whining "waaah, you didn't see Wilt play" are of no importance as far as the question goes. You can claim whatever you want about your elusive time travelers and how those eras were different, but the fact is, Hakeem in his era never produced anything anywhere near as dominant as this combination and probably wouldn't be able to do so, even if his role was exactly the same as Wilt's.

I've seen people trying to bash Wilt's shooting, now they're trying to undermine his post scoring, as well. Then, please, explain how the F he still managed to lead the league in scoring and FG% 4 times, followed by those crazy efficiency 1967 and 1968 seasons. He had to be great at something.


No, my point is you can't just watch film like you are doing and compare the two. They were playing against completely different players with different rules.

If you transplanted Wilt into the 90's and he had to go up against those centers and defenses, the things he was able to do in the '60's may disappear.

If you took Hakeem and transplanted him into the 60's, you may see him doing things then that were even more dominant than what he did in the 90's.

One last point...

Put the worst NBA point guard up against a high school point guard, and he would do things that make you think he's an incredible player who can pull off crazy moves. Put that same NBA point guard back in the NBA, and you would think he's a scrub who has no moves at all. Same concept.

No concept at all. Players are born, not transplanted. OP doesn't mention anything about them playing in the same era. Is it that hard to believe that in his era Wilt was probably a more dominant post threat than Hakeem was in his?


:cheers: :roll: :pimp:

Ethered this idiot. Always posting like he has some first hand knowledge of these players. I could post that Javale McGee vid where he looks like Wilt on roids. Just because Wilt played against people that were tall/strong doesn't mean they were 80's+ level of basketball players.

No one knows how well Wilt would do today. He could either be the GOAT, or another Javale McGee. We watch players hundreds of times nowadays from high school through college and we still basically are guessing at who is going to end up dominant in the NBA.

The ONLY way I would respect your opinions on here is if you show your ability to scout players using current players. If you could pick out of this next upcoming 2014 draft who the top players are then you might be at least a reasonable judge of talent. There is more than enough video for you to base your opinions on.

First of all, again, why care what Wilt would be doing today if this is not what the question was about? Stick to the topic, please.

By the way, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be using those exclusive, elite criteria you mentioned in your last paragraph to judge people who would claim that Magic, Bird, Jordan, etc, would be elite today, am I right? So, why exactly should we put 80's centers on a pedestal compared to Wilt's opponents? What are your credentials as a "draft evaluator" exactly? What are the credentials of the ones who share the same views with you? If you have none, then admit that we might as well put great 80's or 90's centers in today's league and they might still suck. After all, a few of them (80's centers) did play in Wilt's era and they were just fine afterwords.


Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.

Such questions are going to be subjective in any case, but people still offer opinions. You don't need to have seen Wilt play to offer yours. Historians never lived during most of history's great personalities' eras and they still offer opinions, and, after all, we are actually lucky enough to talk about someone who played decades, not centuries ago, and there are still plenty of people alive who did watch him play. A few of them post here, so I hope you offer, at least to them, the chance to speak...

[elementally morale]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.


True dat. And this is the very same reason I don't comment on anything pre 1980, the year I started watching. I'm 40, BTW. An old man, if you wish.

[Angel Face]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.

http://a.gifb.in/082009/1250675630_helicopter_machine_gun.gif

[senelcoolidge]

Boiled down

2 real rings > 2 weak era rings

:facepalm
This is embarrassing to people that really follow basketball.

[LAZERUSS]

Hakeem came into the league in 84-85 season, or some 15-20 years after a prime Chamberlain. The centers of the 80's were much bigger, stronger, and far more skilled than what Wilt had faced some 15-20 years earlier.

And now it has been about 15-20 years since we saw a prime Hakeem. Does anyone in their right minds honestly believe that a prime Hakeem could dominate the Drummond's, the Cousin's, the Hawes', and the Hibbert's of this era? C'mon, the centers of today are far superior to the clowns that Hakeem faced.

And the reality is, there is no way of comparing era's. For instance, there was not one center whose NBA career began in the 60's, that was still playing in the 80's (much less actually dominating the centers of that era.) Just as there is not one center (or even PF) that was playing in the 90's, and in the Hakeem-era, that is playing today (much less being any good if he were.)

[STATUTORY]

wilt chamberlain is more or less a fictitious folklore, a fairy tale or fable without the lessons typically associated with those stories. his stats are about as credible as the exploits of paul bunyan and john henry.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt Chamberlain played in the NBA from 1960 to 1974. Most of the games he played in were never even shown and there was no internet with forums for people to discuss basketball like we do now. I was born in 1984 and just turned 30...so I was born 10 years after Wilt retired. Most people posting here are even younger than I am and the few people here that are old enough to have seen basketball in the 60s are basically old men and old men don't generally go on the computer and post on basketball forums. Your whole questions absurd: Does anyone honestly think Wilt wasn't a more effective low post scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

I'd love to know how old you are that you can say this with a straight face. Let's say you were 10 in 1960 during Wilts rookie year. You couldnt even watch games regularly like you can in this day and age and that would make you in your 60s now. Basically you looked up some stats, watched some youtube videos and decided to give an opinion on something that you really have no business giving said opinion on. I'm 30 years old and I have no business sitting here debating between a player who retired 10 years before I was born and Olajuwon who I did watch in his 90s prime, but who can even answer the question you are asking? Unless Jerry West, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, etc etc are about to make their first insidehoops forum post there is maybe about 2% of people that were even around to have seen Wilt and Hakeem enough to give a valid point on this forum. (and i have my doubts that its even as high as 2%)

I don't know how old you are, but I find it hard to believe you were even alive and saw Wilt Chamberlain play, so you are here making opinions off of youtube videos. Do we honestly think yada yada...most of us are not even old enough to have a serious opinion on this subject. I'm 30 years old and i saw Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, but how I am I supposed to answer a question or most here whether we think Wilt wasn't a more effective post player. I can only look at videos or statistics. The guy retired 10 years before I was even born and most people here are probably even younger than my 30 years, so you are asking a question to people who weren't even around to know. You might as well ask how i felt about prohibition if you are going to ask such pointlessly stupid questions.
Three paragraphs dedicated to the "How do you know if you weren't there?" fallacy? This is the same as that of a creationist addressing the paleontologist, and we all know which side is scientifically valid in such a situation and which side is not. If you don't know enough about Wilt's game to be in this discussion, than by all means you may choose to stay out of it, however, do not assume that there is not enough bodies of evidence or material out there for others to form solid opinions of their own because of "no internet" etc :facepalm

I've seen approximately 2.36% of Wilt Chamberlains NBA career FGM, I've seen roughly twice that of his NCAA career, and even a small percentage of his HS career, Globetrotter career, and miscellaneous practice footage etc. I have combed through his officially recorded, and unofficially recorded statistics numerous times. If you think there are simply no solid bodies of evidence out there to analyze, than I'm afraid you're either pretending, or just consciously choosing to remain ignorant, then projecting it on others as if they've also got nothing.

If you can't attack the point in the OP, go ahead and try to disparage bodies of evidence and proceed to attack the poster. That's always the best logical fallacy to fallback on when you've lost a debate before you ever got started :cheers:

[jongib369]

Three paragraphs dedicated to the "How do you know if you weren't there?" fallacy? This is the same as that of a creationist addressing the paleontologist, and we all know which side is scientifically valid in such a situation and which side is not. If you don't know enough about Wilt's game to be in this discussion, than by all means you may choose to stay out of it, however, do not assume that there is not enough bodies of evidence or material out there for others to form solid opinions of their own because of "no internet" etc :facepalm

I've seen approximately 2.36% of Wilt Chamberlains NBA career FGM, I've seen roughly twice that of his NCAA career, and even a small percentage of his HS career, Globetrotter career, and miscellaneous practice footage etc. I have combed through his officially recorded, and unofficially recorded statistics numerous times. If you think there are simply no solid bodies of evidence out there to analyze, than I'm afraid you're either pretending, or just consciously choosing to remain ignorant, then projecting it on others as if they've also got nothing.

If you can't attack the point in the OP, go ahead and try to disparage bodies of evidence and proceed to attack the poster. That's always the best logical fallacy to fallback on when you've lost a debate before you ever got started :cheers:
I'm honestly laughing at the fact people thought this was an "either".

He doesn't mean it this way, but he's making it sound as if this is all we have to base our opinions off of.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eNdapKU494


http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex72k.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eNdapKU494)

I've never seen them, you've never seen them....Therefore they never existed. You were born when? HAHAHAHAH they existed so ****ing long ago I can't take your silly opinions seriously. You tarded paleontologist and your "reasonable" and "logical" approach to things. :facepalm

http://www.interestingtopics.net/storage/eb15cfe55128b170d20d41e174539020.jpg (http://espn.go.com/nba/)

Click the Bible and read up son.......Do NOT click on the 8 ton Trex in the room

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm honestly laughing at the fact people thought this was an "either".

He doesn't mean it this way, but he's making it sound as if this is all we have to base our opinions off of.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eNdapKU494


http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex72k.jpg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eNdapKU494)

I've never seen them, you've never seen them....Therefore they never existed. You were born when? HAHAHAHAH they existed so ****ing long ago I can't take your silly opinions seriously. You tarded paleontologist and your "reasonable" and "logical" approach to things. :facepalm

http://www.interestingtopics.net/storage/eb15cfe55128b170d20d41e174539020.jpg (http://espn.go.com/nba/)

Click the Bible and read up son.......Do NOT click on the 8 ton Trex in the room
nicely embedded clicks :oldlol: :applause:

[dankok8]

Do we have evidence to judge Wilt Chamberlain? The correct answer IMO probably lies somewhere in the middle between what Smoke117 and CavaliersFTW posted.

On one hand we have a large amount of Wilt's statistics from BRef and NBAstats.net and 2.36% of his field goals which is a reasonable sample size. On the other hand we have little or no context regarding the plays in the footage. We don't know how Wilt performed in the clutch, how he played with foul trouble, how often he fouled out his opponents, how many offensive rebounds he was grabbing, his overall ball movement etc etc. A spinning finger roll made against Bill Russell in the last 2 min of a close playoff game says more to his effectiveness than the same play made against Russell defending with 4 fouls in the 2nd quarter of a preseason game. Those facts are something we don't know in most of those plays. I will go out on a limb and say this though...

In the regular season Wilt was more effective and in the playoffs Hakeem was more effective. Stats definitely support that view in a huge way.

[LAZERUSS]

Do we have evidence to judge Wilt Chamberlain? The correct answer IMO probably lies somewhere in the middle between what Smoke117 and CavaliersFTW posted.

On one hand we have a large amount of Wilt's statistics from BRef and NBAstats.net and 2.36% of his field goals which is a reasonable sample size. On the other hand we have little or no context regarding the plays in the footage. We don't know how Wilt performed in the clutch, how he played with foul trouble, how often he fouled out his opponents, how many offensive rebounds he was grabbing, his overall ball movement etc etc. A spinning finger roll made against Bill Russell in the last 2 min of a close playoff game says more to his effectiveness than the same play made against Russell defending with 4 fouls in the 2nd quarter of a preseason game. Those facts are something we don't know in most of those plays. I will go out on a limb and say this though...

In the regular season Wilt was more effective and in the playoffs Hakeem was more effective. Stats definitely support that view in a huge way.

Take away Russell and Thurmond, and in the entire decade of the 60's, Chamberlain averaged over 31 ppg in his other playoff series (and including the likes of Bellamy, Kerr, Beaty, and Embry...all either HOFers or All-Stars.) Hell, had Wilt had the "good fortune" to have had EIGHT first round exits in the decade of the 60's, and his numbers would have gone thru the roof. And clearly had he been battling teams with NO LEGITIMATE center in the first THREE rounds of playoffs, like Hakeem did in '94, and he would have been putting up 35 -30 .600 playoff series as an afterthought.

A PRIME Chamberlain also HAMMERED Russell in FOUR post-seasons, and on staggering scoring and FG%'s (WAY over the league eFG%'s.) Wilt put up post-seasons on Russell of 30.5 ppg on an eFG% of .500 in a post-season NBA that shot .402. He shelled him for a 30.1 ppg seven game series on a .555 eFG% in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .429.

Furthermore, as to your point as to WHEN Wilt was performing in his playoffs, how about THREE 50+ point games in "MUST-WIN" situations (and one against RUSSELL.) Throw in another 46 point against RUSSELL in a "must-win" game, and then a "must-win" Finals game (on one leg) of 45 points.


And, of course, Chamberlain was holding the likes of Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, and yes, Kareem, to WAY BELOW their normal FG%'s...all while just slaughtering them on the glass.


How about Wilt in his '64 Finals, when he averaged 29.2 ppg on 24 FGAs, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .420? Compare that with Hakeem's '95 Finals against Shaq, when he averaged 32.8 ppg on 29 FGAs per game, on a .483 eFG%, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .504 (and his TEAMMATES collectively shot an eFG% of .514, and a TS% of .595.) Oh, and meanwhile Shaq averaged 28 ppg on a staggering .595 FG% against him, all while easily outrebounding him, outassisting him, and even outblocking him.

As for regular season domination, a PRIME Chamberlain just shelled the likes of Dierking, Imhoff, Reed, Bellamy, and Thurmond, ...to a FAR greater extent than a PRIME Kareem did.

A PRIME Chamberlain was outscoring, outrebounding, and outshooting ALL of his peers by UNFATHOMABLE margins...something that even a PEAK Kareem never did.

And we know that an old Kareem was just carpet-bombing Hakeem in the mid-80's. In TEN STRAIGHT H2H's... 33 ppg on an eye-popping .621 eFG%, including THREE games of 40, 43, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

[Rocketswin2013]

Hakeem came into the league in 84-85 season, or some 15-20 years after a prime Chamberlain. The centers of the 80's were much bigger, stronger, and far more skilled than what Wilt had faced some 15-20 years earlier.

And now it has been about 15-20 years since we saw a prime Hakeem. Does anyone in their right minds honestly believe that a prime Hakeem could dominate the Drummond's, the Cousin's, the Hawes', and the Hibbert's of this era? C'mon, the centers of today are far superior to the clowns that Hakeem faced.

And the reality is, there is no way of comparing era's. For instance, there was not one center whose NBA career began in the 60's, that was still playing in the 80's (much less actually dominating the centers of that era.) Just as there is not one center (or even PF) that was playing in the 90's, and in the Hakeem-era, that is playing today (much less being any good if he were.)
I could reach and say Shaq, who played Hakeem in 95' Finals, played against Dwight Howard in 06'. So you could compare 90's cneters to 00's pretty easily.

[LAZERUSS]

I could reach and say Shaq, who played Hakeem in 95' Finals, played against Dwight Howard in 06'. So you could compare 90's cneters to 00's pretty easily.

Or, you could take Duncan, who was listed as a PF, but has played much of his career as a center, and whose career began in the late 90's (and who faced Hakeem, Shaq, and Dwight), and who is STILL putting up 15-9 seasons on only 29 mpg.


Of course, you could have also taken a Kareem, who came into the NBA in 1969, and who was just SHELLING Hakeem (and Ewing) in the mid-to-late 80's. Hell, a 38-39 year old KAJ pounded Hakeem in TEN STRAIGHT H2H's in their '85 and '86 seasons, to the tune of 33 pg on a .621 FG%.

[Rocketswin2013]

Or, you could take Duncan, who was listed as a PF, but has played much of his career as a center, and whose career began in the late 90's (and who faced Hakeem, Shaq, and Dwight), and who is STILL putting up 15-9 seasons on only 29 mpg.


Of course, you could have also taken a Kareem, who came into the NBA in 1969, and who was just SHELLING Hakeem (and Ewing) in the mid-to-late 80's. Hell, a 38-39 year old KAJ pounded Hakeem in TEN STRAIGHT H2H's in their '85 and '86 seasons, to the tune of 33 pg on a .621 FG%.
Yep. this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ezVqa2Z8o

Made me realize how great players are great players and could play with anybody in league history. Malone was playing so many younger players well in that video way out of his prime. Which is why I never talk bad about Wilt other than playoff performances because he was a phenom as an athlete and was a great back to the basket presence.... Now Bill Russell is different...I refuse to believe he was anything more than a Ben Wallace with more touch on passes out of the high-post and other parts of the court, etc.

[Miller for 3]

Yes. For one he was a way worse foul shooter. You could hack him all game and win 120-40 if Wilt shot 90 FTs. He had no posts moves, played against midgets yet still only average 24 ppg in playofss with insanely high pace and Greer/West/Arizin/Baylor/Goodrich/Cunningham etc. feeding him easy lobs and pocket passes. (Hakeem averaged 27 despite slower pace, better competition, worse teammates, etc.).

Wilt is more like Bogut for instance. Makes 1-2 hook shots a week, but is mainly feeded lobs and easy baskets by his stacked team.

[secund2nun]

Wilt played against mostly scrubs while Hakeem played against men. Hakeem would dominate those Bob Saget look alikes know as "players" from back then. He'd average 55-35-10-10.

[dankok8]

Take away Russell and Thurmond, and in the entire decade of the 60's, Chamberlain averaged over 31 ppg in his other playoff series (and including the likes of Bellamy, Kerr, Beaty, and Embry...all either HOFers or All-Stars.) Hell, had Wilt had the "good fortune" to have had EIGHT first round exits in the decade of the 60's, and his numbers would have gone thru the roof. And clearly had he been battling teams with NO LEGITIMATE center in the first THREE rounds of playoffs, like Hakeem did in '94, and he would have been putting up 35 -30 .600 playoff series as an afterthought.

A PRIME Chamberlain also HAMMERED Russell in FOUR post-seasons, and on staggering scoring and FG%'s (WAY over the league eFG%'s.) Wilt put up post-seasons on Russell of 30.5 ppg on an eFG% of .500 in a post-season NBA that shot .402. He shelled him for a 30.1 ppg seven game series on a .555 eFG% in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .429.

Furthermore, as to your point as to WHEN Wilt was performing in his playoffs, how about THREE 50+ point games in "MUST-WIN" situations (and one against RUSSELL.) Throw in another 46 point against RUSSELL in a "must-win" game, and then a "must-win" Finals game (on one leg) of 45 points.


And, of course, Chamberlain was holding the likes of Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, and yes, Kareem, to WAY BELOW their normal FG%'s...all while just slaughtering them on the glass.


How about Wilt in his '64 Finals, when he averaged 29.2 ppg on 24 FGAs, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .420? Compare that with Hakeem's '95 Finals against Shaq, when he averaged 32.8 ppg on 29 FGAs per game, on a .483 eFG%, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .504 (and his TEAMMATES collectively shot an eFG% of .514, and a TS% of .595.) Oh, and meanwhile Shaq averaged 28 ppg on a staggering .595 FG% against him, all while easily outrebounding him, outassisting him, and even outblocking him.

As for regular season domination, a PRIME Chamberlain just shelled the likes of Dierking, Imhoff, Reed, Bellamy, and Thurmond, ...to a FAR greater extent than a PRIME Kareem did.

A PRIME Chamberlain was outscoring, outrebounding, and outshooting ALL of his peers by UNFATHOMABLE margins...something that even a PEAK Kareem never did.

And we know that an old Kareem was just carpet-bombing Hakeem in the mid-80's. In TEN STRAIGHT H2H's... 33 ppg on an eye-popping .621 eFG%, including THREE games of 40, 43, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

Why would you remove Russell and Thurmond? Hakeem faced Robinson, Ewing, Kareem, Shaq, Kemp etc. virtually ever year in the playoffs.

You say Wilt would average 30 ppg on 60.0% shooting routinely? :wtf: You do know that Wilt in his whole career only shot 60% in a playoff series a few times and the only time he came close to 30 ppg is in the '67 EDSF vs. the Royals (28.0 ppg on 61.2%FG).

Even if you take Wilt's 60's numbers he still only averaged 26.4 ppg on 52.0 %FG and 52.2 %TS in the playoffs. Hakeem for his career averaged 25.9 ppg on 52.8 %FG and 56.9 %TS. In his 10-year prime which is a more fair comparison ('86-'95) Hakeem averaged 28.6 ppg on 53.3 %FG and 57.5 %TS. Wilt never had a single postseason with 57.5 %TS...

[LAZERUSS]

Why would you remove Russell and Thurmond? Hakeem faced Robinson, Ewing, Kareem, Shaq, Kemp etc. virtually ever year in the playoffs.

You say Wilt would average 30 ppg on 60.0% shooting routinely? :wtf: You do know that Wilt in his whole career only shot 60% in a playoff series a few times and the only time he came close to 30 ppg is in the '67 EDSF vs. the Royals (28.0 ppg on 61.2%FG).

Even if you take Wilt's 60's numbers he still only averaged 26.4 ppg on 52.0 %FG and 52.2 %TS in the playoffs. Hakeem for his career averaged 25.9 ppg on 52.8 %FG and 56.9 %TS. In his 10-year prime which is a more fair comparison ('86-'95) Hakeem averaged 28.6 ppg on 53.3 %FG and 57.5 %TS. Wilt never had a single postseason with 57.5 %TS...

In the 60's, Chamberlain faced Russell and Thurmond... TEN times, in his EIGHTEEN playoff series.

Hakeem had entire playoff seasons in which he didn't face ONE HOF center. Of course, he was routinely stats-padding in his first round blowout losses against clowns, as well. Hell, Eaton dramatically reduced his scoring and FG% in their '85 matchup, and only in the last game of that series, when the Jazz were already resting Eaton for the next series, did Hakeem actually have any success. Then he folded his tent against Mychal Thompson in '90 (and was no much more successful against him in '89, either.) And again, give me the list of centers he faced his '94 title run before he ran into Ewing (and 27 ppg on .500 shooting, all while being outrebounded, would have been a poor series by a PRIME Chamberlain, BTW.)

And, like all of the Wilt-bashers, you never bring up LEAGUE AVERAGES. Wilt's "52.2" came in leagues that shot a TS% of about .470. Hakeem's "56.9" came in league that had TS% well into the 50%+ . My god, in his greatest Finals, he shot a TS% of .508, in a post-season that shot a TS% of .541 (and his teammates shot .595.)

And, again as always, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% (and therefore his effective TS%) was considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. You can safely add 1-2% (and I honestly believe even more), to Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% and TS%'s.

Chamberlain was SIGNIFICANTLY outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGES in BOTH eFG% and TS%. And he was doing so, in rounds 1-2, because he was running into Russell in either the first or second rounds, almost every post-season in which he played.

Furthermore, while Chamberlain was dramatically outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGES, he was ROUTINELY holding his opposing centers WELL BELOW them. All while crushing them on the glass. For instance, how about Walt Bellamy in their '68 series. He outshot Bellamy from the field, .584 to .421, in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .446, and then held him to a TS% of .458 in a post-season NBA that shot .487. Of course, I could give you his play against a PEAK Kareem, as well, but you already KNOW that he DRAMATICALLY reduced Kareem to 10%+ below in both.

[dankok8]

In the 60's, Chamberlain faced Russell and Thurmond... TEN times, in his EIGHTEEN playoff series.

Hakeem had entire playoff seasons in which he didn't face ONE HOF center. Of course, he was routinely stats-padding in his first round blowout losses against clowns, as well. Hell, Eaton dramatically reduced his scoring and FG% in their '85 matchup, and only in the last game of that series, when the Jazz were already resting Eaton for the next series, did Hakeem actually have any success. Then he folded his tent against Mychal Thompson in '90 (and was no much more successful against him in '89, either.) And again, give me the list of centers he faced his '94 title run before he ran into Ewing (and 27 ppg on .500 shooting, all while being outrebounded, would have been a poor series by a PRIME Chamberlain, BTW.)

And, like all of the Wilt-bashers, you never bring up LEAGUE AVERAGES. Wilt's "52.2" came in leagues that shot a TS% of about .470. Hakeem's "56.9" came in league that had TS% well into the 50%+ . My god, in his greatest Finals, he shot a TS% of .508, in a post-season that shot a TS% of .541 (and his teammates shot .595.)

And, again as always, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% (and therefore his effective TS%) was considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. You can safely add 1-2% (and I honestly believe even more), to Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% and TS%'s.

Chamberlain was SIGNIFICANTLY outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGES in BOTH eFG% and TS%. And he was doing so, in rounds 1-2, because he was running into Russell in either the first or second rounds, almost every post-season in which he played.

Furthermore, while Chamberlain was dramatically outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGES, he was ROUTINELY holding his opposing centers WELL BELOW them. All while crushing them on the glass. For instance, how about Walt Bellamy in their '68 series. He outshot Bellamy from the field, .584 to .421, in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .446, and then held him to a TS% of .458 in a post-season NBA that shot .487. Of course, I could give you his play against a PEAK Kareem, as well, but you already KNOW that he DRAMATICALLY reduced Kareem to 10%+ below in both.

You just cherry-picked the only two postseason series Hakeem ever struggled in. In one of them he was a rookie and still not in his prime. In '90 against LA, he still blocked 5.8 shots a game in that series.

If I remember correctly fpliii did an analysis on effective FT shooting and it was found that the differences were minimal something along the lines of a fraction of a %. Even if we go on a huge reach and assume an increase equal to your upper limit of 2%, Wilt would still be way below Hakeem. 54.2 %TS vs. 57.5 %TS... and 26.4 ppg vs. 28.6 ppg.

One can accuse Hakeem for booking in regular seasons but in the playoffs the man was an absolute monster. In fact maybe you can't find any all-time great with fewer playoff disappointments than Hakeem. He was just so consistently dominant in the playoffs! And all those first round exits... his teams were usually #6 to #8 seeds (he had virtually no cast from '87 until '95) and they lost to dominant squads. It would be like someone ripping Dirk this year when he loses in Round 1. Heck Hakeem's teams won an unbelievable 7 playoff series in his career without homecourt advantage!

[LAZERUSS]

You just cherry-picked the only two postseason series Hakeem ever struggled in. In one of them he was a rookie and still not in his prime. In '90 against LA, he still blocked 5.8 shots a game in that series.

If I remember correctly fpliii did an analysis on effective FT shooting and it was found that the differences were minimal something along the lines of a fraction of a %. Even if we go on a huge reach and assume an increase equal to your upper limit of 2%, Wilt would still be way below Hakeem. 54.2 %TS vs. 57.5 %TS... and 26.4 ppg vs. 28.6 ppg.

One can accuse Hakeem for booking in regular seasons but in the playoffs the man was an absolute monster. In fact maybe you can't find any all-time great with fewer playoff disappointments than Hakeem. He was just so consistently dominant in the playoffs! And all those first round exits... his teams were usually #6 to #8 seeds and they lost to dominant squads. It would be like someone ripping Dirk this year when he loses in Round 1.

A prime "scoring" Wilt, from '60 thru '66, and missing his 62-63 season (when he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%) was at 32.8 ppg on a .505 eFG% and a .520 TS%. Add at least 2% to his TS% and he was at .540, in leagues that probably had a post-season TS% of around .470 max. In addition, Chamberlain was routinely holding his opposing centers to well below the league average. And give him at least another 3-4 ppg had he played in '63, and he would have been around 35 ppg at his peak.

A .540 against a post-season league average of .470 + .5 or .475. Hakeem's .575 came in leagues that probably shot about .530 or so. Then, factor in that Chamberlain held his opposing centers to below the league norm, and his overall TS% advantages were probably around .540 to .450 or so.

How about Wilt against Russell in '65? Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg on a .555 eFG%, and with a known TS% of about .560+ (that is using a TRUE TS% ..the actual TS% was higher.) Then, add another 1-2% on top of that for his EFFECTIVE TS%, and he was probably at about .580. Russell averaged 15.6 ppg on a .447 eFG%, and with a true TS% of .450. Give Russell a .5 (he didn't shoot nearly as many FTs), and he would have been at .455, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429, and a TS% of .478 (and probably about .480 effective rate.) Wilt was then shooting about 10% above the league TS%, and holding Russell to 2.5% less than that rate. Or an unfathomable 12.5% difference.

Even when Hakeem wiped the floor with Robinson, his TS% advantage was on about 5% (without looking up the numbers, I believe it was .580 to .530.) Again, in a post-season that that had a TS% of .541. And then against Shaq, he fell DRAMATICALLY down to an eFG% of .488, in a post-season NBA that shot .504, and a TS% of .508, in a post-season NBA that shot .541. Had his teammates not slaughtered Shaq's by a staggering margin, Shaq would now have five rings, and Hakeem would only have that one, which came in a league without the real best player.

Furthermore, Hakeem beefed up his stats in first round exits and against FAR inferior overall competition. Had he faced a HOF starting center in 65% of his post-season games, instead of his actual 25% (and let's get real here...Kareem was 39 when they battled...while Wilt faced a PEAK KAJ at ages 24 and 25), and his numbers would have taken a steep decline. In his three Finals, and against Shaq, Ewing, and Parish, he shot .500, .483, and .479. And against Eaton, he was at .477, but take away the last game of that series, when Eaton only played 22 minutes, and he only shot .435. Robinson was his ONE big post-season accomplishment, and even that was somewhat of a mystery, since over the course of their 42 other H2H games, Robinson, at the very least, was his equal.

And one more time, PLEASE include POST-SEASON LEAGUE AVERAGES in your discussions. Chamberlain had a MUCH greater eFG% margin, and a solid TS% margin.

And that doesn't include Wilt playing much better defense, and just crushing his peers on the glass.

A peak Wilt was a much better post-season scorer, a much more efficient shooter, a much better defender, and a much better rebounder.

[Railgun]

A peak Wilt was a much better post-season scorer, a much more efficient shooter, a much better defender, and a much better rebounder.
you love making shit up lol

[fpliii]

If I remember correctly fpliii did an analysis on effective FT shooting and it was found that the differences were minimal something along the lines of a fraction of a %.

Here's the data:


Wilt tTS% tTSA ∆
1960 49.4% 38.2 0.2%
1961 52.3% 37.0 0.3%
1962 53.9% 47.0 0.3%
1963 55.2% 40.7 0.2%
1964 53.9% 34.3 0.2%
1965tot 51.6% 33.8 0.3%
1965sfw 49.7% 39.3 0.2%
1965phi 54.4% 27.9 0.4%
1966 55.1% 30.6 0.3%
1967 65.4% 19.0 1.6%
1968 57.0% 21.8 1.3%
1969 57.7% 18.2 1.3%
1970 56.7% 24.7 1.3%
1971 56.4% 18.5 0.7%
1972 62.0% 12.1 1.1%
1973 70.0% 9.6 1.1%
1960P 50.0% 33.4 0.2%
1961P 49.7% 37.6 0.5%
1962P 51.1% 34.5 0.3%
1964P 54.7% 31.9 0.4%
1965P 55.7% 26.5 0.6%
1966P 50.5% 28.0 0.4%
1967P 56.0% 19.9 1.4%
1968P 52.4% 23.2 1.3%
1969P 53.3% 13.4 1.4%
1970P 53.9% 20.9 1.1%
1971P 48.3% 19.1 0.4%
1972P 57.3% 13.0 1.1%
1973P 56.8% 9.4 1.2%
1964F 51.4% 28.7 0.5%
1967F 51.6% 17.8 2.0%
1969F 49.5% 12.3 1.9%
1970F 58.7% 20.2 1.1%
1972F 61.1% 16.1 0.8%
1973F 50.8% 11.7 1.4%

On topic...I don't have my original post, but I think it's very hard to evaluate Wilt as a volume low post scorer because only in 64-65 (post trade) and 65-66 did he have shooters to space the floor (69-70 before the prime-ending injury as well). We're talking 123 regular season games + 16 playoff games (since Hannum ran that triangle-like offense in Philly with Wilt not isolating down low as often, and with vBK he was playing in that high post role) to evaluate Wilt. Fortunately we have CavsFTW's tape, though I don't know enough to evaluate him properly based on the footage (still chipping away at Newell's book, there's a lot to take in).

I'm not confident enough to speak definitively (one way or the other) about <150 games, but maybe I'm being overly cautious.

[LAZERUSS]

Here's the data:


Wilt tTS% tTSA ∆
1960 49.4% 38.2 0.2%
1961 52.3% 37.0 0.3%
1962 53.9% 47.0 0.3%
1963 55.2% 40.7 0.2%
1964 53.9% 34.3 0.2%
1965tot 51.6% 33.8 0.3%
1965sfw 49.7% 39.3 0.2%
1965phi 54.4% 27.9 0.4%
1966 55.1% 30.6 0.3%
1967 65.4% 19.0 1.6%
1968 57.0% 21.8 1.3%
1969 57.7% 18.2 1.3%
1970 56.7% 24.7 1.3%
1971 56.4% 18.5 0.7%
1972 62.0% 12.1 1.1%
1973 70.0% 9.6 1.1%
1960P 50.0% 33.4 0.2%
1961P 49.7% 37.6 0.5%
1962P 51.1% 34.5 0.3%
1964P 54.7% 31.9 0.4%
1965P 55.7% 26.5 0.6%
1966P 50.5% 28.0 0.4%
1967P 56.0% 19.9 1.4%
1968P 52.4% 23.2 1.3%
1969P 53.3% 13.4 1.4%
1970P 53.9% 20.9 1.1%
1971P 48.3% 19.1 0.4%
1972P 57.3% 13.0 1.1%
1973P 56.8% 9.4 1.2%
1964F 51.4% 28.7 0.5%
1967F 51.6% 17.8 2.0%
1969F 49.5% 12.3 1.9%
1970F 58.7% 20.2 1.1%
1972F 61.1% 16.1 0.8%
1973F 50.8% 11.7 1.4%

On topic...I don't have my original post, but I think it's very hard to evaluate Wilt as a volume low post scorer because only in 64-65 (post trade) and 65-66 did he have shooters to space the floor (69-70 before the prime-ending injury as well). We're talking 123 regular season games + 16 playoff games (since Hannum ran that triangle-like offense in Philly with Wilt not isolating down low as often, and with vBK he was playing in that high post role) to evaluate Wilt. Fortunately we have CavsFTW's tape, though I don't know enough to evaluate him properly based on the footage (still chipping away at Newell's book, there's a lot to take in).

I'm not confident enough to speak definitively (one way or the other) about <150 games, but maybe I'm being overly cautious.

I don't think that was your last conclusion. Your numbers look considerably lower than the last time we brought this up.

[fpliii]

I don't think that was your last conclusion. Your numbers look considerably lower than the last time we brought this up.
It's possible, I'll look and see. This might be an older version.

[fpliii]

Good eye LAZ, here's the correct table:


sPF% tTS% tTSA ∆
1960 0.22 0.492 38.6 0.5%
1961 0.25 0.523 37.2 0.7%
1962 0.23 0.539 47.2 0.5%
1963 0.23 0.555 40.8 0.5%
1964 0.25 0.543 34.4 0.7%
1965tot 0.23 0.519 33.8 0.6%
1965sfw 0.23 0.501 39.3 0.6%
1965phi 0.23 0.547 27.8 0.6%
1966 0.24 0.556 30.5 0.7%
1967 0.39 0.656 19.0 2.1%
1968 0.39 0.579 21.6 1.7%
1969 0.37 0.581 18.3 1.8%
1970 0.36 0.564 25.0 1.6%
1971 0.34 0.562 18.8 1.2%
1972 0.32 0.614 12.4 1.6%
1973 0.30 0.650 10.5 1.9%
1960P 0.22 0.497 33.8 0.6%
1961P 0.25 0.495 37.8 0.6%
1962P 0.23 0.510 34.6 0.5%
1964P 0.25 0.549 32.0 0.7%
1965P 0.23 0.560 26.5 0.8%
1966P 0.24 0.511 27.9 0.9%
1967P 0.39 0.562 20.0 1.8%
1968P 0.39 0.531 23.0 1.6%
1969P 0.37 0.536 13.4 1.9%
1970P 0.36 0.538 21.2 1.6%
1971P 0.34 0.483 19.4 1.0%
1972P 0.32 0.566 13.4 1.7%
1973P 0.30 0.523 10.3 1.7%

[dankok8]

A prime "scoring" Wilt, from '60 thru '66, and missing his 62-63 season (when he averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 eFG%) was at 32.8 ppg on a .505 eFG% and a .520 TS%. Add at least 2% to his TS% and he was at .540, in leagues that probably had a post-season TS% of around .470 max. In addition, Chamberlain was routinely holding his opposing centers to well below the league average. And give him at least another 3-4 ppg had he played in '63, and he would have been around 35 ppg at his peak.

A .540 against a post-season league average of .470 + .5 or .475. Hakeem's .575 came in leagues that probably shot about .530 or so. Then, factor in that Chamberlain held his opposing centers to below the league norm, and his overall TS% advantages were probably around .540 to .450 or so.

How about Wilt against Russell in '65? Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg on a .555 eFG%, and with a known TS% of about .560+ (that is using a TRUE TS% ..the actual TS% was higher.) Then, add another 1-2% on top of that for his EFFECTIVE TS%, and he was probably at about .580. Russell averaged 15.6 ppg on a .447 eFG%, and with a true TS% of .450. Give Russell a .5 (he didn't shoot nearly as many FTs), and he would have been at .455, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429, and a TS% of .478 (and probably about .480 effective rate.) Wilt was then shooting about 10% above the league TS%, and holding Russell to 2.5% less than that rate. Or an unfathomable 12.5% difference.

Even when Hakeem wiped the floor with Robinson, his TS% advantage was on about 5% (without looking up the numbers, I believe it was .580 to .530.) Again, in a post-season that that had a TS% of .541. And then against Shaq, he fell DRAMATICALLY down to an eFG% of .488, in a post-season NBA that shot .504, and a TS% of .508, in a post-season NBA that shot .541. Had his teammates not slaughtered Shaq's by a staggering margin, Shaq would now have five rings, and Hakeem would only have that one, which came in a league without the real best player.

Furthermore, Hakeem beefed up his stats in first round exits and against FAR inferior overall competition. Had he faced a HOF starting center in 65% of his post-season games, instead of his actual 25% (and let's get real here...Kareem was 39 when they battled...while Wilt faced a PEAK KAJ at ages 24 and 25), and his numbers would have taken a steep decline. In his three Finals, and against Shaq, Ewing, and Parish, he shot .500, .483, and .479. And against Eaton, he was at .477, but take away the last game of that series, when Eaton only played 22 minutes, and he only shot .435. Robinson was his ONE big post-season accomplishment, and even that was somewhat of a mystery, since over the course of their 42 other H2H games, Robinson, at the very least, was his equal.

And one more time, PLEASE include POST-SEASON LEAGUE AVERAGES in your discussions. Chamberlain had a MUCH greater eFG% margin, and a solid TS% margin.

And that doesn't include Wilt playing much better defense, and just crushing his peers on the glass.

A peak Wilt was a much better post-season scorer, a much more efficient shooter, a much better defender, and a much better rebounder.

Most of this post is complete hokum that goes off-tangent so I won't respond to all of it. We are discussing scoring efficacy not anything else. But :oldlol: at the bolded statements.

Anyways the only way to salvage your argument would be to prove that Chamberlain faced superior defenses than Hakeem and you haven't done that. Guys that Wilt faced in very many playoff games like Red Kerr, Connie Dierking, Wayne Embry, Zelmo Beaty and heck even the great Walt Bellamy were no defensive standouts. On the other hand many guys you call "scrubs" (non HOFers) that Hakeem faced were great defenders... guys such as Mark Eaton, A.C. Green, and Shawn Kemp. Looking at their total careers I really can't see how Wilt faced much better defenders.

Look at fpliii's table above. Apart from '67 most increases are by a fraction of a % point.

[LAZERUSS]

In any case, Chamberlain was DRAMATICALLY outshooting the post-season LEAGUE AVERAGES. And again, also holding his opposing centers to way below their normal FG%'s, as well.

[Micku]

Hakeem's moves are prettier because he was smaller and quicker, wilt was flat out a lot more dominant than Hakeem in the low post regardless of how many countermoves Hakeem impresses you with. Wilt backing you in with two dribbles and any of his other power game moves given his size and strength are more reliable and unstoppable than anything Hakeem could do.

Well, don't we need the stats to prove it? But would that be an unfair comparison due to across eras and rules?

In terms of moves and skill, then it's similar difference between Shaq and Hakeem. Hakeem had better footwork and more moves in his arsenal, but I think it's safe to assume that Shaq was more efficient.

Being more skilled doesn't equal efficient.

Like Willis Reed and Wilt. Reed looked more polish than Wilt because he was smaller and quicker. He had better handles, and I found his footwork was very impressive with up and under moves and etc. But that doesn't make him efficient than Wilt. Wilt was usually the most efficient player in the league back in the day in terms of FG%.

[LAZERUSS]

Most of this post is complete hokum that goes off-tangent so I won't respond to all of it. We are discussing scoring efficacy not anything else. But :oldlol: at the bolded statements.

Anyways the only way to salvage your argument would be to prove that Chamberlain faced superior defenses than Hakeem and you haven't done that. Guys that Wilt faced in very many playoff games like Red Kerr, Connie Dierking, Wayne Embry, Zelmo Beaty and heck even the great Walt Bellamy were no defensive standouts. On the other hand many guys you call "scrubs" (non HOFers) that Hakeem faced were great defenders... guys such as Mark Eaton, A.C. Green, and Shawn Kemp. Looking at their total careers I really can't see how Wilt faced much better defenders.

Look at fpliii's table above. Apart from '67 most increases are by a fraction of a % point.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Chamberlain faced those guys in 55 of his 160 post-season games. Most all of them, with the exception of Dierking (whom Wilt only battled in four games BTW), were at least multiple all-stars.

How about Reed? Not counting '68 (when it was Bellamy getting blown away by Wilt), 11 games. A PEAK Kareem,... 11 games. Thurmond? 17 games. And Russell? 49 games.

Chamberlain faced Russell, alone, more than Hakeem faced his HOF centers combined. And Russell's Celtics were the best defensive teams, using almost any data, of all-time.

AC Green? A PF. Shawn Kemp? A PF. The only PF that Wilt ever faced in the post-season, was HOFer Jerry Lucas, who was 31, when a 35 year old Chamberlain just TRASHED him.

[dankok8]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Chamberlain faced those guys in 55 of his 160 post-season games. Most all of them, with the exception of Dierking (whom Wilt only battled in four games BTW), were at least multiple all-stars.

How about Reed? Not counting '68 (when it was Bellamy getting blown away by Wilt), 11 games. A PEAK Kareem,... 11 games. Thurmond? 17 games. And Russell? 49 games.

Chamberlain faced Russell, alone, more than Hakeem faced his HOF centers combined. And Russell's Celtics were the best defensive teams, using almost any data, of all-time.

AC Green? A PF. Shawn Kemp? A PF. The only PF that Wilt ever faced in the post-season, was HOFer Jerry Lucas, who was 31, when a 35 year old Chamberlain just TRASHED him.

55 games is A LOT and besides all of those games came up until the conclusion of the 1970 postseason, 116 games in total. The only reason I mentioned those guys is that you praised Wilt's "HOF" competition and I pointed out that they weren't standout defenders which is all true.

Why does it matter if Green and Kemp are PF's? They were very good defenders that would take Hakeem and guard him. Remember Hakeem himself was 6'11'' and even played PF in his early years with Ralph Sampson. You're reaching.

As for the Russell argument... Wilt averaged 25.7 ppg on 49.1 %FG and 49.1 %TS against Bill Russell in the postseason. In the entire decade of the 60's he averaged 26.4 ppg on 52.0 %FG and 52.2 %TS in the postseason. Had he never faced Russell his averages wouldn't even be noticeably higher.

@fpliii

Beautiful post as always. Your research is awe-inspiring!

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Wilt was sooo much better than Hakeem at everything except finesse, its not even funny. no one talks about kareem being DESTROYED by old as KAreem every time:roll: :roll:

[millwad]

In the 60's, Chamberlain faced Russell and Thurmond... TEN times, in his EIGHTEEN playoff series.

The difference is the fact that you still can't even show us one, not even one time where Wilt got doubled or triple'd routinely over a whole game. Defensive schemes were non-existing and double teams and the concept of team defense was beyond terrible. Shaq for an example mostly played in a bad era but he faced tough defensive schemes and very many double and triple teams on him. Wilt, not at all.

I still recall the so called video you tried to use as proof when you claimed that Wilt faced the toughest defense ever and that no one has ever been as swarmed on defense in NBA history. The only thing you came up with was an awful sequence where Wilt's teammate basically ran next to Wilt and dragged his own defender on Wilt for a second. When you got mocked for the fact that you even used that bogus as proof you went on the same rant as always about how we don't have any footage from this and this season, yadi yadi. You are clueless.



Hakeem had entire playoff seasons in which he didn't face ONE HOF center. Of course, he was routinely stats-padding in his first round blowout losses against clowns, as well. Hell, Eaton dramatically reduced his scoring and FG% in their '85 matchup, and only in the last game of that series, when the Jazz were already resting Eaton for the next series, did Hakeem actually have any success. Then he folded his tent against Mychal Thompson in '90 (and was no much more successful against him in '89, either.) And again, give me the list of centers he faced his '94 title run before he ran into Ewing (and 27 ppg on .500 shooting, all while being outrebounded, would have been a poor series by a PRIME Chamberlain, BTW.)

Read the paragraph above, and it's funny that you even dare to talk about stat padding. You mention statpadding in a discussion where we are talking about Wilt, the same man who didn't go to the bench in blow out games and who averaged 45+ minutes per game.

And I still think it's so funny that you always cherry pick, you'll go on a rant about how much Kareem scored against rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon in the regular season but you don't mention that 2nd year pro crushed Kareem in the playoffs, you're a joke.



And, like all of the Wilt-bashers, you never bring up LEAGUE AVERAGES. Wilt's "52.2" came in leagues that shot a TS% of about .470. Hakeem's "56.9" came in league that had TS% well into the 50%+ . My god, in his greatest Finals, he shot a TS% of .508, in a post-season that shot a TS% of .541 (and his teammates shot .595.)

League average has nothing do with it, why should Wilt get a pass because he played in a less talented and under-developed league? Don't be an idiot.



And, again as always, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% (and therefore his effective TS%) was considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. You can safely add 1-2% (and I honestly believe even more), to Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% and TS%'s.

Still don't change the fact that he was one of the worst FT-shooters in NBA history, he gave away a ring for being a choker from the FT-line, it doesn't get any worse than that.



Furthermore, while Chamberlain was dramatically outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGES, he was ROUTINELY holding his opposing centers WELL BELOW them. All while crushing them on the glass. For instance, how about Walt Bellamy in their '68 series. He outshot Bellamy from the field, .584 to .421, in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .446, and then held him to a TS% of .458 in a post-season NBA that shot .487. Of course, I could give you his play against a PEAK Kareem, as well, but you already KNOW that he DRAMATICALLY reduced Kareem to 10%+ below in both.

You mean how Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting over a whole regular season against prime defensive Wilt? You mean how Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game while out-assisting and shooting with a higher FG% than Wilt in the '72 playoffs? The same season where Wilt got his lame 2nd ring..

[Deuce Bigalow]

you love making shit up lol
Post Hakeem and Wilt's playoff and finals scoring stats for the lols

[ThePhantomCreep]

You just cherry-picked the only two postseason series Hakeem ever struggled in. In one of them he was a rookie and still not in his prime. In '90 against LA, he still blocked 5.8 shots a game in that series.

If I remember correctly fpliii did an analysis on effective FT shooting and it was found that the differences were minimal something along the lines of a fraction of a %. Even if we go on a huge reach and assume an increase equal to your upper limit of 2%, Wilt would still be way below Hakeem. 54.2 %TS vs. 57.5 %TS... and 26.4 ppg vs. 28.6 ppg.

One can accuse Hakeem for booking in regular seasons but in the playoffs the man was an absolute monster. In fact maybe you can't find any all-time great with fewer playoff disappointments than Hakeem. He was just so consistently dominant in the playoffs! And all those first round exits... his teams were usually #6 to #8 seeds (he had virtually no cast from '87 until '95) and they lost to dominant squads. It would be like someone ripping Dirk this year when he loses in Round 1. Heck Hakeem's teams won an unbelievable 7 playoff series in his career without homecourt advantage!

That is an outstanding total.

[Asukal]

I watched a 4th quarter footage of the 1969 finals. Wilt had no presence at that game, meanwhile Jerry West was hitting shot after shot trying so hard to win the game in crunch time. Where's Wilt at? Isn't he supposed to be the most dominant center of all time? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, gaylauber continues his cherrypicking ways for another discussion for another time..... :rolleyes:

[millwad]

I watched a 4th quarter footage of the 1969 finals. Wilt had no presence at that game, meanwhile Jerry West was hitting shot after shot trying so hard to win the game in crunch time. Where's Wilt at? Isn't he supposed to be the most dominant center of all time? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, gaylauber continues his cherrypicking ways for another discussion for another time..... :rolleyes:

I find it pretty hilarious how Jlauber/Lazeruss always blame the coach for Wilt's massive choke job in the '69 finals.

In game 4 of that series the Lakers lost with 1 point, Wilt scored a total of 8 points and only made 2 out of 11 FT's.

In game 7 of that series the Lakers lost with 2 points, Wilt scored 18 points but he only made 4 out of 13 FT's.

That is the worst choking job from the FT-line in NBA history and you never hear Lazeruss mention that. But he loves to cherry pick when it comes to other players.

[Asukal]

I find it pretty hilarious how Jlauber/Lazeruss always blame the coach for Wilt's massive choke job in the '69 finals.

In game 4 of that series the Lakers lost with 1 point, Wilt scored a total of 8 points and only made 2 out of 11 FT's.

In game 7 of that series the Lakers lost with 2 points, Wilt scored 18 points but he only made 4 out of 13 FT's.

That is the worst choking job from the FT-line in NBA history and you never hear Lazeruss mention that. But he loves to cherry pick when it comes to other players.

Yeah I recall Wilt shot 2 free throws in that 4th quarter footage and missed them. Everyone misses free throws but if you saw how Wilt shot you would think he didn't care much about making them. Throughout that 4th quarter Wilt was nowhere to be seen... Where is the effort? Where is the heart of a champion? It's like "oh I suck at free throws so I will just throw them and pray that I don't miss" kind of effort. :facepalm

[Psileas]

Yeah I recall Wilt shot 2 free throws in that 4th quarter footage and missed them. Everyone misses free throws but if you saw how Wilt shot you would think he didn't care much about making them. Throughout that 4th quarter Wilt was nowhere to be seen... Where is the effort? Where is the heart of a champion? It's like "oh I suck at free throws so I will just throw them and pray that I don't miss" kind of effort. :facepalm

Your "recollections" are nowhere near complete and are therefore biased. If they weren't, you'd also recall Wilt contesting a shot by Sam Jones in the perimeter (because nobody else bothered to follow him), drawing a foul while fighting for a rebound, making a basket over Russell, grabbing 4 defensive and 1 offensive rebound within like 3 minutes, making a FT (funny how you "missed" both the FT and the basket), fighting and grabbing another defensive rebound, while hurting his knee, then grabbing another defensive rebound, while already having been injured. All this happened in a little more than half a quarter - 3 pts, 7 rebs (with 2 drawn fouls and the pass that led to Sam Jones' 6th foul). What's the per-48 equivalent? Like 22 pts, 52 rebs. No, I'm not saying it's the same thing, but if you don't recall Wilt giving an effort, you're either lying or you have a bad memory or you have a very selective vision, only paying attention to the FGA's.

PS. What are your recollections from Russell during that span? 1 basket and...? Seems to me Wilt gave much more of a sh*t than Russell during those minutes.

[toxicxr6]

I always wondered how shaq would have gone playing in wilts era.. He would be the complete unstoppable machine... With short scrubs half his size trying to guard him... Yet these wilt stans always put him higher on the goat list than shaq..

[Marchesk]

I always wondered how shaq would have gone playing in wilts era.. He would be the complete unstoppable machine... With short scrubs half his size trying to guard him... Yet these wilt stans always put him higher on the goat list than shaq..

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/nate-thurmond-2.jpg

[Asukal]

Your "recollections" are nowhere near complete and are therefore biased. If they weren't, you'd also recall Wilt contesting a shot by Sam Jones in the perimeter (because nobody else bothered to follow him), drawing a foul while fighting for a rebound, making a basket over Russell, grabbing 4 defensive and 1 offensive rebound within like 3 minutes, making a FT (funny how you "missed" both the FT and the basket), fighting and grabbing another defensive rebound, while hurting his knee, then grabbing another defensive rebound, while already having been injured. All this happened in a little more than half a quarter - 3 pts, 7 rebs (with 2 drawn fouls and the pass that led to Sam Jones' 6th foul). What's the per-48 equivalent? Like 22 pts, 52 rebs. No, I'm not saying it's the same thing, but if you don't recall Wilt giving an effort, you're either lying or you have a bad memory or you have a very selective vision, only paying attention to the FGA's.

PS. What are your recollections from Russell during that span? 1 basket and...? Seems to me Wilt gave much more of a sh*t than Russell during those minutes.

The point stands, Wilt played like a role player not the best player of the team. So what if he did something, it's not GOAT effort. Drop all the stat analysis, Wilt didn't go all out. I do agree Russell didn't do much in that 4th Q.

[Psileas]

The point stands, Wilt played like a role player not the best player of the team. So what if he did something, it's not GOAT effort. Drop all the stat analysis, Wilt didn't go all out. I do agree Russell didn't do much in that 4th Q.

Jerry West was hot, you admitted so yourself. When your star guard is that hot, he takes lots of shots, which essentially takes shots away from teammates. If that to you means reducing his teammates to "role players" (including soemone who got 3 pts/7 rebs within 6 minutes), then there have been dozens upon dozens of such cases of GOAT candidates becoming "role players". So, take randomly 1 Finals series, say 1984. I'm sure I can pick large chunks of all games when either Kareem or Bird or Magic looked like "role players". But that's not reality, it's just failing to see the big picture. In the end, Wilt played 3.5 quarters, not 0.5 and still got 18/27/3. Shall I wait till you find a list of role players who have played as well?